DOCSLIB.ORG

Measuring Fractals by Infinite and Infinitesimal Numbers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Measuring Fractals by Infinite and Infinitesimal Numbers MEASURING FRACTALS BY INFINITE AND INFINITESIMAL NUMBERS Yaroslav D. Sergeyev DEIS, University of Calabria, Via P. Bucci, Cubo 42-C, 87036 Rende (CS), Italy, N.I. Lobachevsky State University, Nizhni Novgorod, Russia, and Institute of High Performance Computing and Networking of the National Research Council of Italy http://wwwinfo.deis.unical.it/∼yaro e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Traditional mathematical tools used for analysis of fractals allow one to distinguish results of self-similarity processes after a finite number of iterations. For example, the result of procedure of construction of Cantor’s set after two steps is different from that obtained after three steps. However, we are not able to make such a distinction at infinity. It is shown in this paper that infinite and infinitesimal numbers proposed recently allow one to measure results of fractal processes at different iterations at infinity too. First, the new technique is used to measure at infinity sets being results of Cantor’s proce- dure. Second, it is applied to calculate the lengths of polygonal geometric spirals at different points of infinity. 1. INTRODUCTION During last decades fractals have been intensively studied and applied in various fields (see, for instance, [4, 11, 5, 7, 12, 20]). However, their mathematical analysis (except, of course, a very well developed theory of fractal dimensions) very often continues to have mainly a qualitative character and there are no many tools for a quantitative analysis of their behavior after execution of infinitely many steps of a self-similarity process of construction. Usually, we can measure fractals in a way and can give certain numerical answers to questions regarding fractals only if a finite number of steps in the procedure of their construction has been executed. The same questions can remain without any answer if we consider execution of an infinite number of steps. For example, let us consider the famous fractal construction – Cantor’s set (see Fig. 1). If a finite number of steps, n, has been done constructing Cantor’s set, then we are able to describe numerically the set being the result of this operation. It will have 2n intervals having the length 0Received March 16, 2006. Revised September 12, 2006. 02000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 28A80, 40A05, 40G99, 03E99. 0Keywords: Fractals, infinite and infinitesimal numbers, numeral systems. 2 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev Step 0 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 FIGURE 1. Cantor’s construction. 1 3n each. Obviously, the set obtained after n + 1 iterations will be different and we also are able to measure the lengths of the intervals forming the second set. It will n+1 1 have 2 intervals having the length 3n+1 each. The situation changes drastically in the limit because we are not able to distinguish results of n and n + 1 steps of the construction if n is infinite. We also are not able to distinguish at infinity the results of the following two processes that both use Cantor’s construction but start from different positions. The first one is the usual Cantor’s set and it starts from the interval [0;1], the second starts 1 2 from the couple of intervals [0; 3 ] and [ 3 ;1]. In spite of the fact that for any given finite number of steps, n, the results of the constructions will be different for these two processes, we have no tools to distinguish and, therefore, to measure them at infinity. Another class of fractal objects that defies length measurement are spirals that fas- cinated mathematicians throughout the ages (see, e.g., [12]). Let us consider two kinds of polygonal spirals shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Both of them are geometric polyg- onal spirals related to geometric sequences. The spiral shown in Fig. 2 is constructed as follows. The unit interval is our initial piece and we draw it vertically from bottom to top. At the end we make a right turn and draw the unit interval again from left to right. Then we draw the interval having a length q < 1 by continuation in the same direction from left to right. At the end we make another right turn and draw again the same interval having the length q from top to bottom. At the end of this line we draw the interval with the length q2 and continue using the same principle. Fig. 3 shows the same construction for q > 1. Evidently, for q = 1 we obtain just a square. If we try to calculate the length of geometric polygonal spirals, we obtain imme- diately that it is equal to ∞ S = 2(1 + q + q2 + q3 + :::) = 2 ∑ qi; (1.1) i=0 which is a geometric series and, therefore, its limiting length for q < 1 is 2=(1 − q), i.e., a finite value different for each given q. Then, for all q > 1 traditional analysis Measuring fractals by infinite and infinitesimal numbers 3 FIGURE 2. The first construction steps of a polygonal geometric spi- ral with q < 1. FIGURE 3. The first construction steps of a polygonal geometric spi- ral with q > 1. tells us that the spiral has the infinite length, i.e., we are not able to distinguish the spirals in dependence of the value of q. In this paper, we show how a recently developed approach (see [8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]) that allows one to write down infinite and infinitesimal numbers and to execute arithmetical operations with them can be used for measuring fractals at infinity. Par- ticularly, the lengths of intervals of Cantor’s set and the lengths of spirals from Figs. 2 and 3 for any q will be calculated. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the new method- ology and Section 3 describes a general framework allowing one to express by a finite number of symbols not only finite but infinite and infinitesimal numbers, too. Sec- tion 4 describes how infinite and infinitesimal numbers can be used for measuring fractal objects. Finally, Section 5 contains a brief conclusion. 4 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev 2. METHODOLOGY Usually, when mathematicians deal with infinite objects (sets or processes) it is supposed that human beings are able to execute certain operations infinitely many times (see [1, 2, 3, 10, 14]). For example, in a fixed numeral system it is possible to write down a numeral1 with any number of digits. However, this supposition is an abstraction (courageously declared by constructivists in [9]) because we live in a finite world and all human beings and/or computers finish operations they have started. The new computational paradigm introduced in [16, 17, 18, 19] does not use this abstraction and, therefore, is closer to the world of practical calculations than tra- ditional approaches. Its strong computational character is enforced also by the fact that the first simulator of the Infinity Computer able to work with infinite, finite, and infinitesimal numbers introduced in [16, 17, 18, 19] has been already realized (see [8, 15]). In order to introduce the new methodology, let us consider a study published in Science by Peter Gordon (see [6]) where he describes a primitive tribe living in Ama- zonia - Piraha˜ - that uses a very simple numeral system for counting: one, two, many. For Piraha,˜ all quantities bigger than two are just ‘many’ and such operations as 2+2 and 2+1 give the same result, i.e., ‘many’. Using their weak numeral system Piraha˜ are not able to see, for instance, numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6, to execute arithmetical op- erations with them, and, in general, to say anything about these numbers because in their language there are neither words nor concepts for that. Moreover, the weakness of their numeral system leads to such results as ‘many’ + 1 = ‘many’; ‘many’ + 2 = ‘many’; which are very familiar to us in the context of views on infinity used in the traditional calculus ∞ + 1 = ∞; ∞ + 2 = ∞: This observation leads us to the following idea: Probably our difficulty in working with infinity is not connected to the nature of infinity but is a result of inadequate numeral systems used to express numbers. We start by introducing three postulates that will fix our methodological positions with respect to infinite and infinitesimal quantities and mathematics, in general. Postulate 1. We accept that human beings and machines are able to execute only a finite number of operations. 1We remind that numeral is a symbol or group of symbols that represents a number. The difference between numerals and numbers is the same as the difference between words and the things they refer to. A number is a concept that a numeral expresses. The same number can be represented by different numerals. For example, the symbols ‘6’, ‘six’, and ‘VI’ are different numerals, but they all represent the same number. Measuring fractals by infinite and infinitesimal numbers 5 Thus, we accept that we shall never be able to give a complete description of infinite processes and sets due to our finite capabilities. Particularly, this means that we accept that we are able to write down only a finite number of symbols to express numbers. The second postulate that will be adopted is due to the following consideration. In natural sciences, researchers use tools to describe the object of their study and the used instrument influences results of observations. When physicists see a black dot in their microscope they cannot say: The object of observation is the black dot. They are obliged to say: the lens used in the microscope allows us to see the black dot and it is not possible to say anything more about the nature of the object of observation until we’ll not change the instrument - the lens or the microscope itself - by a more precise one.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Infinity Theorem Is Presented Stating That There Is at Least One Multivalued Series That Diverge to Infinity and Converge to Infinite Finite Values
    Open Journal of Mathematics and Physics | Volume 2, Article 75, 2020 | ISSN: 2674-5747 https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9zm6b | published: 4 Feb 2020 | https://ojmp.wordpress.com CX [microresearch] Diamond Open Access The infinity theorem Open Mathematics Collaboration∗† March 19, 2020 Abstract The infinity theorem is presented stating that there is at least one multivalued series that diverge to infinity and converge to infinite finite values. keywords: multivalued series, infinity theorem, infinite Introduction 1. 1, 2, 3, ..., ∞ 2. N =x{ N 1, 2,∞3,}... ∞ > ∈ = { } The infinity theorem 3. Theorem: There exists at least one divergent series that diverge to infinity and converge to infinite finite values. ∗All authors with their affiliations appear at the end of this paper. †Corresponding author: [email protected] | Join the Open Mathematics Collaboration 1 Proof 1 4. S 1 1 1 1 1 1 ... 2 [1] = − + − + − + = (a) 5. Sn 1 1 1 ... 1 has n terms. 6. S = lim+n + S+n + 7. A+ft=er app→ly∞ing the limit in (6), we have S 1 1 1 ... + 8. From (4) and (7), S S 2 = 0 + 2 + 0 + 2 ... 1 + 9. S 2 2 1 1 1 .+.. = + + + + + + 1 10. Fro+m (=7) (and+ (9+), S+ )2 2S . + +1 11. Using (6) in (10), limn+ =Sn 2 2 limn Sn. 1 →∞ →∞ 12. limn Sn 2 + = →∞ 1 13. From (6) a=nd (12), S 2. + 1 14. From (7) and (13), S = 1 1 1 ... 2. + = + + + = (b) 15. S 1 1 1 1 1 ... + 1 16. S =0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 1 ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Modal Logic of Potential Infinity, with an Application to Free Choice
    The Modal Logic of Potential Infinity, With an Application to Free Choice Sequences Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ethan Brauer, B.A. ∼6 6 Graduate Program in Philosophy The Ohio State University 2020 Dissertation Committee: Professor Stewart Shapiro, Co-adviser Professor Neil Tennant, Co-adviser Professor Chris Miller Professor Chris Pincock c Ethan Brauer, 2020 Abstract This dissertation is a study of potential infinity in mathematics and its contrast with actual infinity. Roughly, an actual infinity is a completed infinite totality. By contrast, a collection is potentially infinite when it is possible to expand it beyond any finite limit, despite not being a completed, actual infinite totality. The concept of potential infinity thus involves a notion of possibility. On this basis, recent progress has been made in giving an account of potential infinity using the resources of modal logic. Part I of this dissertation studies what the right modal logic is for reasoning about potential infinity. I begin Part I by rehearsing an argument|which is due to Linnebo and which I partially endorse|that the right modal logic is S4.2. Under this assumption, Linnebo has shown that a natural translation of non-modal first-order logic into modal first- order logic is sound and faithful. I argue that for the philosophical purposes at stake, the modal logic in question should be free and extend Linnebo's result to this setting. I then identify a limitation to the argument for S4.2 being the right modal logic for potential infinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind
    Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind Anne Newstead Abstract. The mathematician Georg Cantor strongly believed in the existence of actually infinite numbers and sets. Cantor’s “actualism” went against the Aristote- lian tradition in metaphysics and mathematics. Under the pressures to defend his theory, his metaphysics changed from Spinozistic monism to Leibnizian volunta- rist dualism. The factor motivating this change was two-fold: the desire to avoid antinomies associated with the notion of a universal collection and the desire to avoid the heresy of necessitarian pantheism. We document the changes in Can- tor’s thought with reference to his main philosophical-mathematical treatise, the Grundlagen (1883) as well as with reference to his article, “Über die verschiedenen Standpunkte in bezug auf das aktuelle Unendliche” (“Concerning Various Perspec- tives on the Actual Infinite”) (1885). I. he Philosophical Reception of Cantor’s Ideas. Georg Cantor’s dis- covery of transfinite numbers was revolutionary. Bertrand Russell Tdescribed it thus: The mathematical theory of infinity may almost be said to begin with Cantor. The infinitesimal Calculus, though it cannot wholly dispense with infinity, has as few dealings with it as possible, and contrives to hide it away before facing the world Cantor has abandoned this cowardly policy, and has brought the skeleton out of its cupboard. He has been emboldened on this course by denying that it is a skeleton. Indeed, like many other skeletons, it was wholly dependent on its cupboard, and vanished in the light of day.1 1Bertrand Russell, The Principles of Mathematics (London: Routledge, 1992 [1903]), 304.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz and the Infinite
    Quaderns d’Història de l’Enginyeria volum xvi 2018 LEIBNIZ AND THE INFINITE Eberhard Knobloch [email protected] 1.-Introduction. On the 5th (15th) of September, 1695 Leibniz wrote to Vincentius Placcius: “But I have so many new insights in mathematics, so many thoughts in phi- losophy, so many other literary observations that I am often irresolutely at a loss which as I wish should not perish1”. Leibniz’s extraordinary creativity especially concerned his handling of the infinite in mathematics. He was not always consistent in this respect. This paper will try to shed new light on some difficulties of this subject mainly analysing his treatise On the arithmetical quadrature of the circle, the ellipse, and the hyperbola elaborated at the end of his Parisian sojourn. 2.- Infinitely small and infinite quantities. In the Parisian treatise Leibniz introduces the notion of infinitely small rather late. First of all he uses descriptions like: ad differentiam assignata quavis minorem sibi appropinquare (to approach each other up to a difference that is smaller than any assigned difference)2, differat quantitate minore quavis data (it differs by a quantity that is smaller than any given quantity)3, differentia data quantitate minor reddi potest (the difference can be made smaller than a 1 “Habeo vero tam multa nova in Mathematicis, tot cogitationes in Philosophicis, tot alias litterarias observationes, quas vellem non perire, ut saepe inter agenda anceps haeream.” (LEIBNIZ, since 1923: II, 3, 80). 2 LEIBNIZ (2016), 18. 3 Ibid., 20. 11 Eberhard Knobloch volum xvi 2018 given quantity)4. Such a difference or such a quantity necessarily is a variable quantity.
    [Show full text]
  • 0.999… = 1 an Infinitesimal Explanation Bryan Dawson
    0 1 2 0.9999999999999999 0.999… = 1 An Infinitesimal Explanation Bryan Dawson know the proofs, but I still don’t What exactly does that mean? Just as real num- believe it.” Those words were uttered bers have decimal expansions, with one digit for each to me by a very good undergraduate integer power of 10, so do hyperreal numbers. But the mathematics major regarding hyperreals contain “infinite integers,” so there are digits This fact is possibly the most-argued- representing not just (the 237th digit past “Iabout result of arithmetic, one that can evoke great the decimal point) and (the 12,598th digit), passion. But why? but also (the Yth digit past the decimal point), According to Robert Ely [2] (see also Tall and where is a negative infinite hyperreal integer. Vinner [4]), the answer for some students lies in their We have four 0s followed by a 1 in intuition about the infinitely small: While they may the fifth decimal place, and also where understand that the difference between and 1 is represents zeros, followed by a 1 in the Yth less than any positive real number, they still perceive a decimal place. (Since we’ll see later that not all infinite nonzero but infinitely small difference—an infinitesimal hyperreal integers are equal, a more precise, but also difference—between the two. And it’s not just uglier, notation would be students; most professional mathematicians have not or formally studied infinitesimals and their larger setting, the hyperreal numbers, and as a result sometimes Confused? Perhaps a little background information wonder .
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo and Leibniz: Different Approaches to Infinity
    Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 54 (1999) 87–99. c Springer-Verlag 1999 Galileo and Leibniz: Different Approaches to Infinity Eberhard Knobloch Communicated by J. J. Gray Introduction “God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we cannot prove it.” In this way Andre´ Weil, one of the leading mathematicians of this century, characterized the mathematics of our time (Meschkowski 1969, p. 112; Rosenbloom 1950, p. 72). This connection between mathematics, God and the devil is not new: I would like to recall here only the study scene in Goethe’s Faust: Faust has the devil temporarily in his hand, because the pentagram is badly drawn. What is new in Weil’s saying is the insight that even mathematics cannot provide complete foundations for itself. Metamathematics and Hilbert’s proof theory are disciplines of our century. When Hilbert set about showing how the antinomies of the set theory created by Cantor could be avoided without betraying mathematics, as described in his lecture “On the Infinite” in 1925, he emphasized the necessity of clarifying the nature of the infinite (Hilbert 1926, p. 188). The infinite plays a crucial role in analysis, this most ingenious product of mathematical science, being ramified in the most refined way. As Hilbert fittingly formulated, mathematical analysis is, so to speak, a pure symphony on the infinite (Hilbert 1926, p. 184). No wonder that three years after Hilbert’s lecture his pupil Hermann Weyl character- ized mathematics as the science of the infinite (Weyl 1925–1927, p. 1; Laugwitz 1986, p. 233). He thus defined mathematics in a completely different way than his predecessors of earlier centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculus Terminology
    AP Calculus BC Calculus Terminology Absolute Convergence Asymptote Continued Sum Absolute Maximum Average Rate of Change Continuous Function Absolute Minimum Average Value of a Function Continuously Differentiable Function Absolutely Convergent Axis of Rotation Converge Acceleration Boundary Value Problem Converge Absolutely Alternating Series Bounded Function Converge Conditionally Alternating Series Remainder Bounded Sequence Convergence Tests Alternating Series Test Bounds of Integration Convergent Sequence Analytic Methods Calculus Convergent Series Annulus Cartesian Form Critical Number Antiderivative of a Function Cavalieri’s Principle Critical Point Approximation by Differentials Center of Mass Formula Critical Value Arc Length of a Curve Centroid Curly d Area below a Curve Chain Rule Curve Area between Curves Comparison Test Curve Sketching Area of an Ellipse Concave Cusp Area of a Parabolic Segment Concave Down Cylindrical Shell Method Area under a Curve Concave Up Decreasing Function Area Using Parametric Equations Conditional Convergence Definite Integral Area Using Polar Coordinates Constant Term Definite Integral Rules Degenerate Divergent Series Function Operations Del Operator e Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Deleted Neighborhood Ellipsoid GLB Derivative End Behavior Global Maximum Derivative of a Power Series Essential Discontinuity Global Minimum Derivative Rules Explicit Differentiation Golden Spiral Difference Quotient Explicit Function Graphic Methods Differentiable Exponential Decay Greatest Lower Bound Differential
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Numbers Sigma-Complex3-2009-1 in This Unit We Describe Formally What Is Meant by a Complex Number
    Complex numbers sigma-complex3-2009-1 In this unit we describe formally what is meant by a complex number. First let us revisit the solution of a quadratic equation. Example Use the formula for solving a quadratic equation to solve x2 10x +29=0. − Solution Using the formula b √b2 4ac x = − ± − 2a with a =1, b = 10 and c = 29, we find − 10 p( 10)2 4(1)(29) x = ± − − 2 10 √100 116 x = ± − 2 10 √ 16 x = ± − 2 Now using i we can find the square root of 16 as 4i, and then write down the two solutions of the equation. − 10 4 i x = ± =5 2 i 2 ± The solutions are x = 5+2i and x =5-2i. Real and imaginary parts We have found that the solutions of the equation x2 10x +29=0 are x =5 2i. The solutions are known as complex numbers. A complex number− such as 5+2i is made up± of two parts, a real part 5, and an imaginary part 2. The imaginary part is the multiple of i. It is common practice to use the letter z to stand for a complex number and write z = a + b i where a is the real part and b is the imaginary part. Key Point If z is a complex number then we write z = a + b i where i = √ 1 − where a is the real part and b is the imaginary part. www.mathcentre.ac.uk 1 c mathcentre 2009 Example State the real and imaginary parts of 3+4i.
    [Show full text]
  • Plotinus on the Soul's Omnipresence in Body
    Plotinus on the Limitation of Act by Potency Gary M. Gurtler, S.J. Boston College The limitation of act by potency, central in the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, has its origins in Plotinus. He transforms Aristotle’s horizontal causality of change into a vertical causality of participation. Potency and infinity are not just unintelligible lack of limit, but productive power. Form determines matter but is limited by reception into matter. The experience of unity begins with sensible things, which always have parts, so what is really one is incorporeal, without division and separation. Unity is like the esse of Thomas, since it is the act that makes a thing what it is and has its fullness in God. 1. Introduction Over fifty years ago Norris Clarke, S.J., published “The Limitation of Act by Potency: Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism,” The New Scholasticism, 26 (1952) 167–194, which highlighted the role of Plotinus in formulating some of the fundamental distinctions operative in medieval philosophy. He singled out the doctrine of participation and the idea of infinity and showed how they went beyond the limits of classical Greek thought. At the same time, his work challenged some of the basic historical assumptions of Thomists about the relation of scholastic philosophy, especially St. Thomas’s, to Plato and Aristotle. I have appreciated more and more the unusual openness and self critical character of Fr. Clarke’s historical method, and am pleased to have the chance in this response to Sarah Borden’s paper to explore some of the issues raised by Fr. Clarke’s seminal article in light of my own work on Plotinus.
    [Show full text]
  • Attributes of Infinity
    International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics Attributes of Infinity Kiamran Radjabli* Utilicast, La Jolla, California, USA. * Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Manuscript submitted May 15, 2016; accepted October 14, 2016. doi: 10.17706/ijapm.2017.7.1.42-48 Abstract: The concept of infinity is analyzed with an objective to establish different infinity levels. It is proposed to distinguish layers of infinity using the diverging functions and series, which transform finite numbers to infinite domain. Hyper-operations of iterated exponentiation establish major orders of infinity. It is proposed to characterize the infinity by three attributes: order, class, and analytic value. In the first order of infinity, the infinity class is assessed based on the “analytic convergence” of the Riemann zeta function. Arithmetic operations in infinity are introduced and the results of the operations are associated with the infinity attributes. Key words: Infinity, class, order, surreal numbers, divergence, zeta function, hyperpower function, tetration, pentation. 1. Introduction Traditionally, the abstract concept of infinity has been used to generically designate any extremely large result that cannot be measured or determined. However, modern mathematics attempts to introduce new concepts to address the properties of infinite numbers and operations with infinities. The system of hyperreal numbers [1], [2] is one of the approaches to define infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals (a.k.a. nonstandard reals) *R, are an extension of the real numbers R that contains numbers greater than anything of the form 1 + 1 + … + 1, which is infinite number, and its reciprocal is infinitesimal. Also, the set theory expands the concept of infinity with introduction of various orders of infinity using ordinal numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1 the Real Number System
    1.1 The Real Number System Types of Numbers: The following diagram shows the types of numbers that form the set of real numbers. Definitions 1. The natural numbers are the numbers used for counting. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . A natural number is a prime number if it is greater than 1 and its only factors are 1 and itself. A natural number is a composite number if it is greater than 1 and it is not prime. Example: 5, 7, 13,29, 31 are prime numbers. 8, 24, 33 are composite numbers. 2. The whole numbers are the natural numbers and zero. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . 3. The integers are all the whole numbers and their additive inverses. No fractions or decimals. , -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, . An integer is even if it can be written in the form 2n , where n is an integer (if 2 is a factor). An integer is odd if it can be written in the form 2n −1, where n is an integer (if 2 is not a factor). Example: 2, 0, 8, -24 are even integers and 1, 57, -13 are odd integers. 4. The rational numbers are the numbers that can be written as the ratio of two integers. All rational numbers when written in their equivalent decimal form will have terminating or repeating decimals. 1 2 , 3.25, 0.8125252525 …, 0.6 , 2 ( = ) 5 1 1 5. The irrational numbers are any real numbers that can not be represented as the ratio of two integers.
    [Show full text]
  • Georg Cantor English Version
    GEORG CANTOR (March 3, 1845 – January 6, 1918) by HEINZ KLAUS STRICK, Germany There is hardly another mathematician whose reputation among his contemporary colleagues reflected such a wide disparity of opinion: for some, GEORG FERDINAND LUDWIG PHILIPP CANTOR was a corruptor of youth (KRONECKER), while for others, he was an exceptionally gifted mathematical researcher (DAVID HILBERT 1925: Let no one be allowed to drive us from the paradise that CANTOR created for us.) GEORG CANTOR’s father was a successful merchant and stockbroker in St. Petersburg, where he lived with his family, which included six children, in the large German colony until he was forced by ill health to move to the milder climate of Germany. In Russia, GEORG was instructed by private tutors. He then attended secondary schools in Wiesbaden and Darmstadt. After he had completed his schooling with excellent grades, particularly in mathematics, his father acceded to his son’s request to pursue mathematical studies in Zurich. GEORG CANTOR could equally well have chosen a career as a violinist, in which case he would have continued the tradition of his two grandmothers, both of whom were active as respected professional musicians in St. Petersburg. When in 1863 his father died, CANTOR transferred to Berlin, where he attended lectures by KARL WEIERSTRASS, ERNST EDUARD KUMMER, and LEOPOLD KRONECKER. On completing his doctorate in 1867 with a dissertation on a topic in number theory, CANTOR did not obtain a permanent academic position. He taught for a while at a girls’ school and at an institution for training teachers, all the while working on his habilitation thesis, which led to a teaching position at the university in Halle.
    [Show full text]